home : Aufruf\|Call : Themen\|Topics : Artikel\|Articles : Material : Programm\|Programme : Links
Trans-identitarian organiziation & hybridity - holy goldfish, what's that supposed to be!? Notes concerning the debate about location, organization and identity right round the 5th border camp. Or: Why this year's camp will take place in Thüringen?! 1. Prelude Not happy, but definitely entertained (and on top of everything brought back to reality) will have felt those, who in the past months had access to the internal mailing-list, that is to the virtual forum for discussion of the antiracist-bordercamp-community. Because here one got offered quite a lot, last but not least a sparkling debate-showdown concerning the question, if and how the mainly german-white bordercamp-population could purposeful cooperate with migrant- and refugee-organizations, so that not only the german-white dominance in leftradical political structures could for the long term be annulled, but also so that trans-identitarian alliances could be set up. The trigger of the debate was however something different. It was the question where the 5th antiracist bordercamp should settle down in the year 2002: in Hamburg (in direct continuation of the camp in Frankfurt) or in Thüringen (following on from the first 3 years of bordercamping). Piquant here was not so much the dragged out area of conflict between the west-german metropolis and east-german provinces (including the anti-zone-chauvinism which is often cultivated among west-german leftradicals). No, piquant was, that it was mainly the refugee-self-organizations 'The Voice' and the 'Refugee Initiative Brandenburg' who stood up for Thüringen. Because through this another problem became urgent: the already mentioned problem, if white antiracists would tackle their dominance (including their whiteness) and hereby create on their part (!) the precondition for trans-identitarian alliances. This overlapping of two completely different questions made the debate quite difficult: While the pro-Hamburg-faction (represented mainly by people not coming from Hamburg) mainly praised the advantages of the metropolis - combining this with the reproach, that those in favour of Thüringen would subordinate themselves in a typical moral antira-manner to the matters of concerns of the refugees and hereby foster a trivializing human-rights-activism, the Thüringen-wing argued the other way around, although not as exaggerated: They said that it was indisputed that Hamburg was the better place for leftradical antiracism. And still: The chance to go first steps in the direction of trans-identitarian organization by direct cooperation with politically organized refugees (and hereby challenging the 'we-you-effects' of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion) would simply be too big and too tempting in order to let it pass by. So much about the very much messed up starting situation. One still made a decision, at a meeting at the beginning of december in Göttingen, and it actually was - unexpected for most - in favour of Thüringen! But this did not stay without consequences. The decision, which had been a very narrow (and surely a strange) one, was only a couple of minutes old, when some leftradicals turned out to be typical german Michels, that is 'typical german loosers' (as one of the people concerned frankly admitted): Not only were the first withdrawels from the preparatory group of the bordercamp-project announced, no, counter-activities were already planned (the Schill-Y-Out-Days in Hamburg which by now have their own call). And the already mentioned reproaches against those in favour of Thüringen were exaggerated in an almost crazy manner: It was now talked about the "german Antiras", who would "once again run their business in the name of refugees" and who hereby had made a decisive contribution to ruin the project of the anti-racist bordercamp (being one of the most promising projects of the Radical Left). I don't want to add any fuel to the fire here. Because there have been definitely enough bizarre-shrill pitches in this debate… I think, that what is needed is rather a discussion which is interested in communication. Because the bordercamp-project is far too valuable in order to let it be worn out in dispute. As someone in favour of Thüringen I therefore want to have a good look at the arguments in favour of Hamburg. Hamburg was brought up in two ways: On the one hand side Hamburg was praised to the skies: As a metropolis (with a history of leftradical movement) it would be almost predestined to become the venue for the 5th antiracist bordercamp. On the other hand it got illucidated and even warned, in which sense the project 'bordercamp' would go to the dogs, if it would in 2002 take place in Thüringen instead of Hamburg. In the following I want to orientate myself along with this classical division: 2. Metropolis Hamburg Especially three arguments have appealed to the friends of Hamburg: a) Great public: In a so-called letter of application which was signed by a Hamburg Fanclub SO36 and which was quite central in the debate one refers to the topic of publicity as follows: "In Hamburg it would be quite easier than in the smallness of the german-polish or german-tchechien border area to have a national publicity which would make the racist politics of deportation and walling of an issue at a national level. (…) We think that being heard and able to intervene in already existing discurses would be a lot more easier here than anywhere else." This expectation was justified in two ways: On the one hand side with the argument that Hamburg - similar to Frankfurt - would have a public, which was more receptive for antiracist matters of concern, consisting of left journalists, the leftovers of a bourgeous-alternative camp, various migrant communities, extremist culture producers (Hamburg School etc.) and, last but not least, a still diverse left-radical scene which could function as a gigantic sound-box. As another argument in favour of Hamburg it was said that here (remember: Hamburg as a stronghold of leftradical movement history) "leftradical codes were well known to a broader public (although not necessarily liked), with the consequence, that 'our' matter of concern didn't run the danger to be misunterstood right from the stark, be it as purely chaotic or as shallow human-rightism. b) The great range of topics: As as big city Hamburg has a more complex social structure than for example Jena or Erfurt, there are more diversive milieus, cultures and subcultures, a higher proportion of migrants, more state and social institutions, a more complex infrastructure (from the port to the unterground), and just recently a racist-autoritarian senator of the interior etc. etc.. This would increase not only the number of practical points for intervention, no, such obviously complex conditions would forbid it from the start to be easily content with simple analysis- and intervention-solutions, a danger, to which (westgerman) leftradicals not seldomly succumb, especially in the seemingly so homogenious eastern part of Germany. c) Hamburg as the better location: Hamburg is great, not only because its big political scene which is also rich in tradition, but also simply as town: "The elb, the port, die Schanze and the golden Poodle, Altona and the fish market, (…) Land Unter und die Hamburger Schule… well, you know...)" (Fan Club SO36) 3. Coherent … and somehow not really… Certainly, many of the named arguments are coherent, at least on a general level. And still: When having a closer look many of the arguments are more dubious or less conclusive than they appear at first glance. It is important to bring this out, because otherwise a serious evaluation of the pro-Thüringen with the pro-Hamburg-arguments is not possible: a) Concerning the 'great public': 1. That the reaction of the press was such extensive in Frankfurt did not only have to do with the metropolitan-like conditions but also with something different: On the one hand side the public (not least the foreign public) directly connected the border-camp with the anti-globalization-resistance in Göteborg and Genua. This brought us a lot of extra-attention-credits. On the other hand the idea to attack the highly sensible(!) thing 'Frankfurt airport' was a real clou. Because this enabled us to throw a spanner in the works with our actions which is normally only seldomly the case. This brought some additive attention, attention, which cannot be automatically counted on elsewhere. 2. In addition one can add, that the thesis that there will be a greater public in Hamburg is true, but that one should not overestimate it. Because in order to really build up political pressure (and that is what we want to do in the end), one needs more than some short moments of public presence, be it on page 4 of the 'Frankfurter Rundschau', on page 1 of the 'Süddeutsche Zeitung' or 40 seconds of the 'Tagesschau'. No, growing pressure owes itself directly to successful mobilization, that is to the fact that more and more people are willing to position themselves in a certain, for example antiracist manner and hereby build up political pressure. But how do we mobilize in such successful manners? On the one hand side by presenting our matter of concern publicly and by doing so giving potentially interested people the chance to sit up and take notice. But this in only one side of the coin. The other is our willingness (be it in Hamburg, Thüringen or elsewhere) to again and again openly approach those, who are somehow sympathizing with us and who therefore listen up, but who have so far not made their way in left-radical structures. But exactly this willingness is more than underdeveloped in left-racidal structures. It is therefore a matter of urgent necessity to develop it, because otherwise we are condemned to rotate around our own existence of peripheral importance. Looking at it from this angle it becomes obvious why it is much too simple to just praise the potentials for publicity in Hamburg without plumbing if these could be effectively used under the given circumstances. Or more pointed: Of what use is the best public (which Hamburg no doubt has) if we are at the same time unable to make something out of it? 3. When speaking of public effectiveness we should not forget, that a (trans-identitarian) camp with 1000 persons, of which about half are refugees and migrants, represents an important event of its own and therefore could produce quite a few thüringen-specific publicity effects. b) Concerning the wide range of topics: For me this argument is inappropriate as well: 1. Power conditions are everywhere and they always appear together, in the big city as well as in the provinces: This is demonstrated not least by the offspring of the so-called 'nationally liberated zones': Sometimes they attack homosexuals; then they ravage jewish cemeteries or they hunt migrants, set fire to refugee homes and from time to time they kill homeless, sometimes disabled people as well. Hereby they show - which is somehow bizarre -, that antisemitism, antiziganism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, capitalism, normalism etc. are not only everywhere, but also that they are linked in varied ways. This leads to the following: Considering this one cannot say that Hamburg offers more possibilites for political intervention than any other place! 2. The fact that the range of possible topics is wide, be it in Hamburg or in Thüringen, does not mean that it would make sense for an antiracist bordercamp to translate all of these topics into action. It should be rather well considered, which topics or links of topics should be processed when, where and how. Because only if this happens, thematic variety becomes a strength. Otherwise there is the danger to get bogged down which would then go along with an impression of confusion or even indiscriminate activism. This estimation has been consensus in the bordercamp-structures for a long time, with the important addition that the bordercamp is more than a place for activism, meaning also a discursive, that is a public space for events, workshops and discussions, so that at least in this regard there is thematic variety. Looking at it from this angle it becomes obvious, why it is inappropriate to use the argument of thematic variety only in favour of Hamburg. Because when a main part of the variety regarding content is established with events etc. anyway, then this aspect has only little to do with the question of where the camp should take place. Or does it make any difference for the respective content (which should be processed and published via the different scene-media anyway) if the bordercamp-event-and-discussion-tent is in Hamburg or in Thüringen? 3. The fact that (westgerman) leftradicals again and again, last but not least in the eastern part of Germany, tend to simplify (and hereby unwillingly work in the hands of a national-socialist view of the world, according to which some east-zones are liberated of 'the other' and the'strange'), is undoubtedly annoying. But: Such a behaviour cannot be cured by only locating the camp in Hamburg. No, the leftradical tendency to simplifications, stereotypizations etc. can only be confronted with events regarding the content etc., and these can take place anywhre, the main thing is that they take place at all. c) Concerning the location advantage of Hamburg: Yes, Hamburg is great. So it was without doubt a charming move of the Kreuzberg application form to celebrate Hamburg in this regard. And still: That the flair of a town gets such a central role in a political debate (at least on a subliminal level), that is somehow quite obscene (and even chauvinism of the affluent), at least when taking into account that what we are dealing with here are unfortunately extremely bloody awful things such as something as banally-evil as the Residenzpflicht, which prohibits some people from living and/or making politics just like they feel like. 4. Provisional appraisal You're right, many of my objections do not speak against Hamburg, but they also do not speak in favour of Hamburg, by merely showing, that a whole of the arguments brought forward in favour of Hamburg are by no means as catchy as it was claimed again and again in many statements as a self-evident truth. Especially the double-difficulty, (1.) in which way and (2.) with which objectives we intend to create publicity is definitely more complex, even more insoluble than most of the pro-Hamburg-statements give the impression. In contrast there are at best two circumstances which say something for Hamburg: 1. Hamburg is indeed an attractive town and in addition has a (still) big political scene. In the case of a camp in Hamburg (maybe in 2003…) this would lead to impressive streams of participants, including the feedback-effects that this would imply for the leftradical scene (over and above Hamburg). 2. Schill: No doubt, Schill is dangerous, last but not least as a modernized prototype of a politics of the interior and justice which is becoming more and more authoritarian. To counter this with the power of an antiracist bordercamp would for sure be usefull! 5. From white antiracism to trans-identitarian, even: to hybrid organization As mentioned briefly in the beginning, the Hamburg-faction did not content itself with standing up for Hamburg as the bordercamp-location. No, in addition (as in any shabby election campaign as well) they explicitly argued and even inveighted against Thüringen. This happened in two different ways: On the one hand side many of the pro-Hamburg-arguments were not only positively but also negatively, that is as anti-Thüringen-arguments brought to bear. This strategy is well known and does not need any further explanation. On the other hand was Thüringen massivly attacked because of the planned cooperation between the mainly german-white bordercamp-population and The Voice and other refugee self-help organizations. Because this would programmatically lead to the "reduction to mere antiracism" (call for the Schill-Y-Out-Days), which means nothing else but the sell-out of perspectives of leftradical resistance:The fear was voiced, that instead of understanding antiracism as a principal refusal of the conditions of society the decision in favour of Thüringen would automaticially lead to the well-known (and not seldomly coming along as charitable paternalism) support and solidarity work. As a place for radical critism of society the bordercamp would thereby had had its day. All one could expect would thereby be a "camp reduced on refugee politics" - to the disadvantage of a "Hamburg political camp" (to quote only a few of the many voices regarding this.) Why this is the case was only seldomly set out, probably because it became clear to everybody as a subtext: The critics are focussing on the fact that The Voice is not a genuine leftradical group, just as the majority of the white german Antiras (whoever this shall be in the structures of the camp) does not associate antiracist work with perspectives of radical or even revolutionary change of society. And because The Voice and other refugee-self-organizations (along with their german antira-friends) would be quasi-organizers of the camp in Thüringen, this would automatically lead to the bewailed loss of substance. It is necessary to contradict this perspective in many ways: 1. It may be (without being in the position to really judge this) that The Voice in its entirety is not a leftradical organization (as left radical is generally, that is on the part of german leftradicals, unterstood), at least one can read the official self-portrayal of The Voice (www.humanrights. De/voice) in such a way. However: To me this is no coincidence. People from whom the basic human- and social rights have been taken away have imperatively a quite specific unterstanding of politics and radicalism. That means: When The Voice claims for example " a right to live - abolition of torture, inhuman and humiliating treatment; abolition of slavery and forced labour; the right of personal freedom and security", then this reflects a dimension of experience which most german whites are spared and which thereby cannot become their political point of reference. To ignore this (or to denounce it as reformistic human-rights-politics) is not only cynical and narrow-minded, no, it also ignores a general facts which is crucial for revolutionary change of society: Radical resistance is a privilege not a matter of course. Those who have to struggle for merely surviving have usually no other choice to subjugation or invisibility, or maybe desperate rebellion, which gets usually brutally crushed. In contrast, the development of long-term and fundamental perspectives of resistance needs a minimum of social and personal freedom, as a precondition in order to initiate and go through individual and collective processes of emancipation. Right, and therefore it seems very inappropriate to me (because it ignores the effects of racist discrimination) to dismiss campaigns like the anti-Residenzpflicht(compulsory residence)-campaign as shortened antiracism. It's rather necessary to support such campaigns so that more and more refugees are enabled to develop further-reaching perspectives - in the case that this has not already been the case anyway. Mark you: 'in the case'. Because although it is important to take the different experiences serious (including the different conclusions that they can entail) it would be wrong to draw from this the general conclusion that refugee-self-organizations are principally less radical or even reformistic. It is exactly this impression which was given in the Hamburg-Thüringen-debate on a regular basis, actually by again and again playing in the thesis that the reference to the social situation as a starting point of antiracist practice (as said: starting point) automatically means to stop here and let the whole thing go down hill into th the misery of reformistic human-rightism. This is not only bold, but also self-righteous, because it was not least the so-called undogmatic Radical Left (which the pro-Hamburg-faction is permanently referring to) which always stood up for the concept of a politics in the first person, that is a perspective according to which political practice should not ossify in politics of representation, but rather take the individual social and socitetal situation as a basis, that is the starting(!) point , be it in district., houses- or jobberstruggles. Looking at it from this angle one can't help thinking that there were two measures at work in the past months: While german movement-leftists think that they are capable of combining the struggle for their own conditions of living with a general leftradical perspective refugees are generally suspected to be unable to do this or to not want this in the first place, an impression against which already in Göttingen a member of The Voice vehemently protested. 2. The rumor, according to which the political cooperation with refugees is a dreary, even bad-for-business matter is poor and it gives information not least about the limited horizon of those, who claim such things. Because independently from the fact, if The Voice or other migrant-self-organizations are humanistic, radical-democratic or ngo-like, to be deferred by this is everything but plausible. In my view that which is important is rather to come to a position of one's own concerning anti-racist cooperation. Those who do this will soon be rewarded with at least three insights: First: Cooperation can amount to more than reformistic support work or even paternalism (be it charitable or instrumentell), because other, especially radical forms of cooperation are possible. Second: Support work and other forms of cooperation, be they social or political, do not exclude each other. In contrast: In the long-term all of this will merge anyway! (Cue word here: trans-identitarian, even: hybrid alliances) Third: All of this is not only music of the future, but also of the past. This means that the common reduction of anti-racism to moral-humanitarian support work is rather a young phenomenon. Still in the 80ies, and even in the early 90ies anti-racism was often integrated in a social-revolutionary, that is anti-capitalist perspective (cf. the refugee-campaign of the RZ, the so-called revolutionary cells). This went no doubt along with numerous dubiosities, after all migrants and refugees were encumbered with the burden of the global 'revolutionary subject'. And still: It shows, that we do not have to invent everything new in Thüringen. In this sense it's worth it to take the experiences and realizations from 'former times' serious. Regarding this I want to especially refer to a strategy document, which was presented by the Anti-Rassismusbüro/Bremen (anti-racist-office/Bremen) in setember 2000, in which they analyse the failure of various cooperation-projects between german anti-racists and refugee- and migrant-self-organizations. This (and a reply which is no less worth reading) can be looked up unter: www.is-Bremen.de/arab. If one applies this to the present times, this means: It is cheap (like it is done by parts of the pro-Hamburg-faction) to refer to the current state of anti-racism and then loudly call out 'iiih' and fork off to Hamburg. Damned, this is no solution! Whoever is serious about her/his criticism of the present once in a while truly alarming state of anti-racism should come to Thüringen and see that changes can be arranged as quickly as possible. That this won't work without criticism and arguments is not questioned by anybody, last of all by the refugees and migrants themselves! 3. I now come to the (for the time being) last argument which is not so much a reply but rather the outing of a gap (in the pro-Hamburg-discurs), a gap though, which is ominous and therefore worth to be interpreted: be it as trick of power politics, unintentional exposition of one's own poisition or as a droll blockade to see and hear clearly. In their claim (which was the decisive factor for the pro-Hamburg-faction), according to which what is planned in Thüringen is mainly refugee-support-work, which is reduced anti-racism and which therefore has to be rejected, they intentionally keep quiet about the fact, that not only on both assess- and preparation-meetings in Frankfurt and Göttingen, but also in numerous written contributions more and other things have been brought to bear in favour of Thüringen than what was known until now, in fact by people i.a. from Frankfurt, Berlin and Bremen. According to them a camp put up together with refugee- and migrant-self-organizations would offer the chance to finally tackle the circumstance, that the majority of the anti-racist border-camp population (so far) has been german-white. Because this circumstance (which is well known from other events/structures) is everything but harmless. No, in the opposite: It is the effect of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion, that means neither coincidence or neuter but part of the problem, which we pretend to fight by means of anti-racist border-camps and other activities. This means: Migrants, refugees and people without legal documents are exposed to numerous institutional as well as structural harassments, discriminations and obstacles. This starts with purposeful strategies of social isolation, expecially for refugees (key words here are: living in homes, prohibition to work, 'Residenzpflicht' (compulsory residence) , the system of chip-cards…), continues with the (not least) structural discrimination on the housing market, in the world of wage work, in the education system, the field of political participation… and ends with everyday violence, be it verbal, symbolic of physical. All of these exclusions have - and this is decisive here - one indispensable precondition: They require the existence of a collective, not only national, but also racist charged WE-identity, which is facing a YOU, designated as the more or less Other respective Different. Because only where a WE can bei distinguished from a YOU it is plausible or legitimate (at least in racist-national constituted societies) to subject certain people to the just listed harassments, discriminations and obstacles. WE-YOU-identities are not easily discovered, and therefore the existence of such WE-YOU-identities requires double processes of constructions, which refer to each other mirror-image-like. It is rather to emphasize that in the course of political processes (that is due to colonialism and slavery, due to the development of capitalist-patriarchal nation-states, due to apartheid and racist discrimination etc.) skin colour and other physical (and recently also cultural) markings were not only constructed as allegedly eminent orientations of distinction but also marked (= classified). It was on this basis that - by reverting to further actual as well as ascribed markings and features - it came to the formation of different identities, among them for example white and black ethnic identities. What is exactly meant by this cannot be investigated here, because it would require to answer a lot of questions, questions like the following: What is blackness/ what is whiteness/what does it mean, that blackness respective whiteness are historically-culturally produced identities/ how do these identities emerge/ why does blackness depend on whiteness/ what are fantastic-projective ascriptions (concerning lust, desire and fear)/ how and why do these ascriptions become internalized and therefore realitiy/ how are blackness, whiteness and other power relations (for example gender) interlinked/ to what extent are blackness and whiteness reductionist polarizations (in view of Asian, Arabic, Eastern European… identities etc. etc. ? As I said, I do not want to continue these thoughts, but refer to the article 'Colonial World of images and the subject. Or else: whiteness, blackness & gender: About the crossing of racism and sexism", which was printed in the interim number 541 respective in the kassiber number 47. (The english version was printed in the reader for the Crossover Conference, which took place in Bremen in january 2002.) Because this text tries to formulate answers to some of the questions, which were just brought up, and it is one of the texts, which were brought up fot discussion in the course of the Thüringen-Hamburg-debate, but which were the whole lot ignored by the pro-Hamburg-faction… Coming back: When making oneself aware of what has just been said it becomes obvious, why it is everything but a coincidence - but instead the effect of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion, that so far there has been no further-reaching cooperation between refugees and non-refugees respective migrants and non-migrants in the context of the bordercamp. Because the differences which exist between refugees, german whites and migrants are not only due to the fact, that they often come from different societal respective cultural backgrounds, which reduces the sum of possible intersection (by which I don't want to strengthen the prejudice of solid, strictly measured cultural groups). No, the differences between refugees, german whites and migrants exist not least because of the fact that they are differently socialized by the racist circumstances, that is 'put' at different places in the societal space. Or even more pointed: While german whites belong to the societal WE (with all the inclusions this implies) refugees and migrants belong to the societal YOU (with all the exclusions which this implies). And this is true for all, that is also for white leftradicals. They might fight it, but no german white in Germany can escape the privilege to not have to face racist discrimination, exclusion and harassment. This leads to the conclusion that trans-identitarian (even more: hybrid) organization is the only adequate strategy to fight racism seriously! To unterstand the concrete meaning of this one should at first be aware of two aspects concerning identity: On the one hand side it is inevitable - if one likes it or not - to recognize the differences between the respective identities, that is to be aware of them and take them serious. After all our identities are the expression of different experiences, experiences which differ according to class, gender, ethnicity etc. and therefore each go along with specific preconditions for the shaping of the subject and the identity. But on the other hand it is true as well that the identity is nothing which comes into being just by itself, depending on the place a human being has come into the societal space. No, identities are always the product of an interplay: It's true that people are exposed to certain conditions (which they cannot choose themselves), but there is scope, scope in which the own conditions of living can be reflected and desires for change or even revolution can come up. (If this scope didn't exist, it would not be unterstandable, why 'we' exist, why there is resistance anyway.) In this sense the identity politics of maginalized respective discriminated groups should be taken serious (lesbians/gays, migrants and refugees, women, disabled people etc.), because in order to put up resistance one has to form a resistance collective and in order to do so the people concerned have to exchange their respective experiences of discrimination as well as where they are off to. This strategy is often connected with a (tactical) approval of one's own marginalization (I want to refer here exemplary to the concept of Kannak Attack). Well, and for most part this is also true for left resistance in general; also here is the need for a collective We, otherwise the left resisters would be not more than a wild bunch of chickens, unable to act. And still: Although identity should not be condemned lock, stock and barrel (and please take this into consideration!), it is still true that identities are primarily products of power. They reflect, as I have mentioned before, the sum of the respective experiences, that is of the unreasonable demands (be they good or bad), the discriminations, the harassments, the compulsions, the norms, the categories, the classifications, the polarizations, short, all which human beings have to or may experience. And because this is the way it is, because our identities are primarily internalized power conditions, and because we are made part of the conditions that we fight against, it is inevitable to critically question our identities, that is to tear them apart and (in the long term) to put them together to something completely different: What we have to do (to phrase it in the field of racism) is to put identities to the test, which are beyong racist YOU-WE-polarizations, which are not based on delimination, in- and exclusion, projective ascriptions etc., but molten, constantly changing and developping and who expect the Other not only in the outside (with the strangers), but also within themselves, and who have the urge to start to 'new waters', not least new waters in themselves (cue word here: free flooding - hey, do you notice anything!?) With other words, what is needed is that which the english language refers to with the rather bulky term of hybridity: Where hybrid identities respective hybrid cultures come up, there is no outside, which is strictly shielded from a certain inside, there it is not possible to tell apart those who belong and those who don't belong and on this basis build up conditions of discrimination, exploitation and violence. But stop: This what is formulated here is music of the future, is nothing more than an utopian vanishing point. Because presently we are standing somewhere very different. We are - and this is pointed! - prisoners of our identities, which is not surprising, because it is not possible for anyone (be she oder he refugee, white german oder migrant) to just cancel the societal conditions (from which our respective identities do emerge). Or put differently: As long as societal power conditions exist, our identites are the immediate, 'shadow-like' witnesses of these conditions. Sad, but true! Is is because of this that Thüringen is about not more than first steps, first steps, though, which - and here the nice word trans-identitarian enters the scene - leave behind the narrow borders of one's own identity-space, keeping in mind, that identities can be very different and therefore not fit easily together, why one always has to see, where it fits or does not fit and when it is time to argue, to argue not least about the question , how (in the long term) such an anti-racist resistance-WE can be build, which is already formed trans-identitarian, even hybrid. Or put differently: What one wants to do in Thüringen is to take the bread away from the mouth of racism: Racism requires divisions (WE-YOU…) and rebuilds them again and again. One can only face this by loosening and sometimes even opening the screws of division, that is by a cooperation of refugees, german whites and migrants, so that not only are the identity walls torn down (or at least damaged) but also the power conditions which are directly connected to this are fought against, be it the regime of deportation, the prohibition to work or the violence in the streets. However, several people of the pro-Hamburg-faction don't want to know anything of this, so that some of them have preferred it to be completely silent about the arguments, which were put foreward in favour of Thüringen. It seems (as I said: it seems!) as a countermove that some Hamburg-zampanos prefer it to stew in their own juice, that is to till their own allotment (in the colours: german-white-qutonomous) and this in the name of, as it is said again and again, a genuine (a good, a pure, a proper…) movement-camp. One question in this context: Can anyone, just anyone explain to me, why it should not be possible to get a leftradical and this would imply a trans-identitarian movement camp off the ground in Thüringen. Wouldn't that be cool, a lot cooler (and on top of everything a gigantic Chance) than once again having a bordercamp general assembly with a majority of the personal being german-white!!! 6. Taking stock In the provisional appraisal it was said that expecially Schill and infrastructural advantages were speaking in favour of Hamburg. This is something, but in my eyes not enough, at least not in direct comparison with all the new things that are waiting for us in Thüringen, something new, which is difficult, challenging and on top of everything questioning our privileges, but what inversely constitutes a chance, the chance to react to a number of necessities which we cannot avoid in the long run anyway (like 'we' did not manage to avoid the patriarchal gender relations…). In this contect I want to say that one should take the chance with two hands where it's offered. This is adressing especially those who have pointed out again and again that one could also cooperate with refugees and migrants in Hamburg. But: At present there are no refugees or migrants in Hamburg which are in a comparative way close to the border camp like The Voice or the Refugee Initative Brandenburg. So if one really cares about trans-identitarian organization one should take the chance where it is offered instead of going to look in Hamburg for refugees and migrants who are willing to cooperate. A plan which is doomed to failure anyway as anyone will concede who has ever tried to mould something like trans-identitarian alliances. In short: In my eyes there are many good reasons (not all of them have been mentioned in this text - like for example: 'Attacking right hegemony!') that this year's music will play in Thüringen. But: It is too late. Considerable parts of the previous border camp preparation group (among them many of those who have been in the business of politics for a long time) have gone away and are in the meantime preparing the Schill-Y-Out-Days in Hamburg. Despite of all differences this is an immense shortening for this year's border camp, apart from the fact that it is everything but a brilliant achievenent in the field of political culture. And still - this is the situation, and we have no other choice than to seek the political (!) debate, because otherwise there is the danger of a more or less petit bourgeos (that is shielded from each other) juxtaposition of autonomous garden plot holders. In this sense I appeal to you, the knights of the dispute, which you are according to your own words: Break the silence, stop spreading rumors, name names and say why a bordercamp in Thüringen constitutes in your eyes a political dead end. In the meantime there is sufficient text which you can relate to! Gregor Samsa
`08.07.2002`

home : Aufruf|Call : Themen|Topics : Artikel|Articles : Material : Programm|Programme : Links

Trans-identitarian organiziation & hybridity - holy goldfish, what's that supposed to be!?

Notes concerning the debate about location, organization and identity right round the 5th border camp. Or: Why this year's camp will take place in Thüringen?!

1. Prelude

Not happy, but definitely entertained (and on top of everything brought back to reality) will have felt those, who in the past months had access to the internal mailing-list, that is to the virtual forum for discussion of the antiracist-bordercamp-community. Because here one got offered quite a lot, last but not least a sparkling debate-showdown concerning the question, if and how the mainly german-white bordercamp-population could purposeful cooperate with migrant- and refugee-organizations, so that not only the german-white dominance in leftradical political structures could for the long term be annulled, but also so that trans-identitarian alliances could be set up.
The trigger of the debate was however something different. It was the question where the 5th antiracist bordercamp should settle down in the year 2002: in Hamburg (in direct continuation of the camp in Frankfurt) or in Thüringen (following on from the first 3 years of bordercamping). Piquant here was not so much the dragged out area of conflict between the west-german metropolis and east-german provinces (including the anti-zone-chauvinism which is often cultivated among west-german leftradicals). No, piquant was, that it was mainly the refugee-self-organizations 'The Voice' and the 'Refugee Initiative Brandenburg' who stood up for Thüringen. Because through this another problem became urgent: the already mentioned problem, if white antiracists would tackle their dominance (including their whiteness) and hereby create on their part (!) the precondition for trans-identitarian alliances. This overlapping of two completely different questions made the debate quite difficult: While the pro-Hamburg-faction (represented mainly by people not coming from Hamburg) mainly praised the advantages of the metropolis - combining this with the reproach, that those in favour of Thüringen would subordinate themselves in a typical moral antira-manner to the matters of concerns of the refugees and hereby foster a trivializing human-rights-activism, the Thüringen-wing argued the other way around, although not as exaggerated: They said that it was indisputed that Hamburg was the better place for leftradical antiracism. And still: The chance to go first steps in the direction of trans-identitarian organization by direct cooperation with politically organized refugees (and hereby challenging the 'we-you-effects' of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion) would simply be too big and too tempting in order to let it pass by.
So much about the very much messed up starting situation. One still made a decision, at a meeting at the beginning of december in Göttingen, and it actually was - unexpected for most - in favour of Thüringen! But this did not stay without consequences. The decision, which had been a very narrow (and surely a strange) one, was only a couple of minutes old, when some leftradicals turned out to be typical german Michels, that is 'typical german loosers' (as one of the people concerned frankly admitted): Not only were the first withdrawels from the preparatory group of the bordercamp-project announced, no, counter-activities were already planned (the Schill-Y-Out-Days in Hamburg which by now have their own call). And the already mentioned reproaches against those in favour of Thüringen were exaggerated in an almost crazy manner: It was now talked about the "german Antiras", who would "once again run their business in the name of refugees" and who hereby had made a decisive contribution to ruin the project of the anti-racist bordercamp (being one of the most promising projects of the Radical Left).
I don't want to add any fuel to the fire here. Because there have been definitely enough bizarre-shrill pitches in this debate… I think, that what is needed is rather a discussion which is interested in communication. Because the bordercamp-project is far too valuable in order to let it be worn out in dispute. As someone in favour of Thüringen I therefore want to have a good look at the arguments in favour of Hamburg. Hamburg was brought up in two ways: On the one hand side Hamburg was praised to the skies: As a metropolis (with a history of leftradical movement) it would be almost predestined to become the venue for the 5th antiracist bordercamp. On the other hand it got illucidated and even warned, in which sense the project 'bordercamp' would go to the dogs, if it would in 2002 take place in Thüringen instead of Hamburg. In the following I want to orientate myself along with this classical division:

2. Metropolis Hamburg

Especially three arguments have appealed to the friends of Hamburg:

a) Great public: In a so-called letter of application which was signed by a Hamburg Fanclub SO36 and which was quite central in the debate one refers to the topic of publicity as follows: "In Hamburg it would be quite easier than in the smallness of the german-polish or german-tchechien border area to have a national publicity which would make the racist politics of deportation and walling of an issue at a national level. (…) We think that being heard and able to intervene in already existing discurses would be a lot more easier here than anywhere else." This expectation was justified in two ways: On the one hand side with the argument that Hamburg - similar to Frankfurt - would have a public, which was more receptive for antiracist matters of concern, consisting of left journalists, the leftovers of a bourgeous-alternative camp, various migrant communities, extremist culture producers (Hamburg School etc.) and, last but not least, a still diverse left-radical scene which could function as a gigantic sound-box. As another argument in favour of Hamburg it was said that here (remember: Hamburg as a stronghold of leftradical movement history) "leftradical codes were well known to a broader public (although not necessarily liked), with the consequence, that 'our' matter of concern didn't run the danger to be misunterstood right from the stark, be it as purely chaotic or as shallow human-rightism.
b) The great range of topics: As as big city Hamburg has a more complex social structure than for example Jena or Erfurt, there are more diversive milieus, cultures and subcultures, a higher proportion of migrants, more state and social institutions, a more complex infrastructure (from the port to the unterground), and just recently a racist-autoritarian senator of the interior etc. etc.. This would increase not only the number of practical points for intervention, no, such obviously complex conditions would forbid it from the start to be easily content with simple analysis- and intervention-solutions, a danger, to which (westgerman) leftradicals not seldomly succumb, especially in the seemingly so homogenious eastern part of Germany.
c) Hamburg as the better location: Hamburg is great, not only because its big political scene which is also rich in tradition, but also simply as town: "The elb, the port, die Schanze and the golden Poodle, Altona and the fish market, (…) Land Unter und die Hamburger Schule… well, you know...)" (Fan Club SO36)

3. Coherent … and somehow not really…

Certainly, many of the named arguments are coherent, at least on a general level. And still: When having a closer look many of the arguments are more dubious or less conclusive than they appear at first glance. It is important to bring this out, because otherwise a serious evaluation of the pro-Thüringen with the pro-Hamburg-arguments is not possible:

a) Concerning the 'great public': 1. That the reaction of the press was such extensive in Frankfurt did not only have to do with the metropolitan-like conditions but also with something different: On the one hand side the public (not least the foreign public) directly connected the border-camp with the anti-globalization-resistance in Göteborg and Genua. This brought us a lot of extra-attention-credits. On the other hand the idea to attack the highly sensible(!) thing 'Frankfurt airport' was a real clou. Because this enabled us to throw a spanner in the works with our actions which is normally only seldomly the case. This brought some additive attention, attention, which cannot be automatically counted on elsewhere. 2. In addition one can add, that the thesis that there will be a greater public in Hamburg is true, but that one should not overestimate it. Because in order to really build up political pressure (and that is what we want to do in the end), one needs more than some short moments of public presence, be it on page 4 of the 'Frankfurter Rundschau', on page 1 of the 'Süddeutsche Zeitung' or 40 seconds of the 'Tagesschau'. No, growing pressure owes itself directly to successful mobilization, that is to the fact that more and more people are willing to position themselves in a certain, for example antiracist manner and hereby build up political pressure. But how do we mobilize in such successful manners? On the one hand side by presenting our matter of concern publicly and by doing so giving potentially interested people the chance to sit up and take notice. But this in only one side of the coin. The other is our willingness (be it in Hamburg, Thüringen or elsewhere) to again and again openly approach those, who are somehow sympathizing with us and who therefore listen up, but who have so far not made their way in left-radical structures. But exactly this willingness is more than underdeveloped in left-racidal structures. It is therefore a matter of urgent necessity to develop it, because otherwise we are condemned to rotate around our own existence of peripheral importance. Looking at it from this angle it becomes obvious why it is much too simple to just praise the potentials for publicity in Hamburg without plumbing if these could be effectively used under the given circumstances. Or more pointed: Of what use is the best public (which Hamburg no doubt has) if we are at the same time unable to make something out of it? 3. When speaking of public effectiveness we should not forget, that a (trans-identitarian) camp with 1000 persons, of which about half are refugees and migrants, represents an important event of its own and therefore could produce quite a few thüringen-specific publicity effects.
b) Concerning the wide range of topics: For me this argument is inappropriate as well: 1. Power conditions are everywhere and they always appear together, in the big city as well as in the provinces: This is demonstrated not least by the offspring of the so-called 'nationally liberated zones': Sometimes they attack homosexuals; then they ravage jewish cemeteries or they hunt migrants, set fire to refugee homes and from time to time they kill homeless, sometimes disabled people as well. Hereby they show - which is somehow bizarre -, that antisemitism, antiziganism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, capitalism, normalism etc. are not only everywhere, but also that they are linked in varied ways. This leads to the following: Considering this one cannot say that Hamburg offers more possibilites for political intervention than any other place! 2. The fact that the range of possible topics is wide, be it in Hamburg or in Thüringen, does not mean that it would make sense for an antiracist bordercamp to translate all of these topics into action. It should be rather well considered, which topics or links of topics should be processed when, where and how. Because only if this happens, thematic variety becomes a strength. Otherwise there is the danger to get bogged down which would then go along with an impression of confusion or even indiscriminate activism. This estimation has been consensus in the bordercamp-structures for a long time, with the important addition that the bordercamp is more than a place for activism, meaning also a discursive, that is a public space for events, workshops and discussions, so that at least in this regard there is thematic variety. Looking at it from this angle it becomes obvious, why it is inappropriate to use the argument of thematic variety only in favour of Hamburg. Because when a main part of the variety regarding content is established with events etc. anyway, then this aspect has only little to do with the question of where the camp should take place. Or does it make any difference for the respective content (which should be processed and published via the different scene-media anyway) if the bordercamp-event-and-discussion-tent is in Hamburg or in Thüringen? 3. The fact that (westgerman) leftradicals again and again, last but not least in the eastern part of Germany, tend to simplify (and hereby unwillingly work in the hands of a national-socialist view of the world, according to which some east-zones are liberated of 'the other' and the'strange'), is undoubtedly annoying. But: Such a behaviour cannot be cured by only locating the camp in Hamburg. No, the leftradical tendency to simplifications, stereotypizations etc. can only be confronted with events regarding the content etc., and these can take place anywhre, the main thing is that they take place at all.
c) Concerning the location advantage of Hamburg: Yes, Hamburg is great. So it was without doubt a charming move of the Kreuzberg application form to celebrate Hamburg in this regard. And still: That the flair of a town gets such a central role in a political debate (at least on a subliminal level), that is somehow quite obscene (and even chauvinism of the affluent), at least when taking into account that what we are dealing with here are unfortunately extremely bloody awful things such as something as banally-evil as the Residenzpflicht, which prohibits some people from living and/or making politics just like they feel like.

4. Provisional appraisal

You're right, many of my objections do not speak against Hamburg, but they also do not speak in favour of Hamburg, by merely showing, that a whole of the arguments brought forward in favour of Hamburg are by no means as catchy as it was claimed again and again in many statements as a self-evident truth. Especially the double-difficulty, (1.) in which way and (2.) with which objectives we intend to create publicity is definitely more complex, even more insoluble than most of the pro-Hamburg-statements give the impression. In contrast there are at best two circumstances which say something for Hamburg: 1. Hamburg is indeed an attractive town and in addition has a (still) big political scene. In the case of a camp in Hamburg (maybe in 2003…) this would lead to impressive streams of participants, including the feedback-effects that this would imply for the leftradical scene (over and above Hamburg). 2. Schill: No doubt, Schill is dangerous, last but not least as a modernized prototype of a politics of the interior and justice which is becoming more and more authoritarian. To counter this with the power of an antiracist bordercamp would for sure be usefull!

5. From white antiracism to trans-identitarian, even: to hybrid organization

As mentioned briefly in the beginning, the Hamburg-faction did not content itself with standing up for Hamburg as the bordercamp-location. No, in addition (as in any shabby election campaign as well) they explicitly argued and even inveighted against Thüringen. This happened in two different ways: On the one hand side many of the pro-Hamburg-arguments were not only positively but also negatively, that is as anti-Thüringen-arguments brought to bear. This strategy is well known and does not need any further explanation. On the other hand was Thüringen massivly attacked because of the planned cooperation between the mainly german-white bordercamp-population and The Voice and other refugee self-help organizations. Because this would programmatically lead to the "reduction to mere antiracism" (call for the Schill-Y-Out-Days), which means nothing else but the sell-out of perspectives of leftradical resistance:The fear was voiced, that instead of understanding antiracism as a principal refusal of the conditions of society the decision in favour of Thüringen would automaticially lead to the well-known (and not seldomly coming along as charitable paternalism) support and solidarity work. As a place for radical critism of society the bordercamp would thereby had had its day. All one could expect would thereby be a "camp reduced on refugee politics" - to the disadvantage of a "Hamburg political camp" (to quote only a few of the many voices regarding this.)
Why this is the case was only seldomly set out, probably because it became clear to everybody as a subtext: The critics are focussing on the fact that The Voice is not a genuine leftradical group, just as the majority of the white german Antiras (whoever this shall be in the structures of the camp) does not associate antiracist work with perspectives of radical or even revolutionary change of society. And because The Voice and other refugee-self-organizations (along with their german antira-friends) would be quasi-organizers of the camp in Thüringen, this would automatically lead to the bewailed loss of substance. It is necessary to contradict this perspective in many ways:

1. It may be (without being in the position to really judge this) that The Voice in its entirety is not a leftradical organization (as left radical is generally, that is on the part of german leftradicals, unterstood), at least one can read the official self-portrayal of The Voice (www.humanrights. De/voice) in such a way. However: To me this is no coincidence. People from whom the basic human- and social rights have been taken away have imperatively a quite specific unterstanding of politics and radicalism. That means: When The Voice claims for example " a right to live - abolition of torture, inhuman and humiliating treatment; abolition of slavery and forced labour; the right of personal freedom and security", then this reflects a dimension of experience which most german whites are spared and which thereby cannot become their political point of reference. To ignore this (or to denounce it as reformistic human-rights-politics) is not only cynical and narrow-minded, no, it also ignores a general facts which is crucial for revolutionary change of society: Radical resistance is a privilege not a matter of course. Those who have to struggle for merely surviving have usually no other choice to subjugation or invisibility, or maybe desperate rebellion, which gets usually brutally crushed. In contrast, the development of long-term and fundamental perspectives of resistance needs a minimum of social and personal freedom, as a precondition in order to initiate and go through individual and collective processes of emancipation. Right, and therefore it seems very inappropriate to me (because it ignores the effects of racist discrimination) to dismiss campaigns like the anti-Residenzpflicht(compulsory residence)-campaign as shortened antiracism. It's rather necessary to support such campaigns so that more and more refugees are enabled to develop further-reaching perspectives - in the case that this has not already been the case anyway. Mark you: 'in the case'. Because although it is important to take the different experiences serious (including the different conclusions that they can entail) it would be wrong to draw from this the general conclusion that refugee-self-organizations are principally less radical or even reformistic. It is exactly this impression which was given in the Hamburg-Thüringen-debate on a regular basis, actually by again and again playing in the thesis that the reference to the social situation as a starting point of antiracist practice (as said: starting point) automatically means to stop here and let the whole thing go down hill into th the misery of reformistic human-rightism. This is not only bold, but also self-righteous, because it was not least the so-called undogmatic Radical Left (which the pro-Hamburg-faction is permanently referring to) which always stood up for the concept of a politics in the first person, that is a perspective according to which political practice should not ossify in politics of representation, but rather take the individual social and socitetal situation as a basis, that is the starting(!) point , be it in district., houses- or jobberstruggles. Looking at it from this angle one can't help thinking that there were two measures at work in the past months: While german movement-leftists think that they are capable of combining the struggle for their own conditions of living with a general leftradical perspective refugees are generally suspected to be unable to do this or to not want this in the first place, an impression against which already in Göttingen a member of The Voice vehemently protested.
2. The rumor, according to which the political cooperation with refugees is a dreary, even bad-for-business matter is poor and it gives information not least about the limited horizon of those, who claim such things. Because independently from the fact, if The Voice or other migrant-self-organizations are humanistic, radical-democratic or ngo-like, to be deferred by this is everything but plausible. In my view that which is important is rather to come to a position of one's own concerning anti-racist cooperation. Those who do this will soon be rewarded with at least three insights: First: Cooperation can amount to more than reformistic support work or even paternalism (be it charitable or instrumentell), because other, especially radical forms of cooperation are possible. Second: Support work and other forms of cooperation, be they social or political, do not exclude each other. In contrast: In the long-term all of this will merge anyway! (Cue word here: trans-identitarian, even: hybrid alliances) Third: All of this is not only music of the future, but also of the past. This means that the common reduction of anti-racism to moral-humanitarian support work is rather a young phenomenon. Still in the 80ies, and even in the early 90ies anti-racism was often integrated in a social-revolutionary, that is anti-capitalist perspective (cf. the refugee-campaign of the RZ, the so-called revolutionary cells). This went no doubt along with numerous dubiosities, after all migrants and refugees were encumbered with the burden of the global 'revolutionary subject'. And still: It shows, that we do not have to invent everything new in Thüringen. In this sense it's worth it to take the experiences and realizations from 'former times' serious. Regarding this I want to especially refer to a strategy document, which was presented by the Anti-Rassismusbüro/Bremen (anti-racist-office/Bremen) in setember 2000, in which they analyse the failure of various cooperation-projects between german anti-racists and refugee- and migrant-self-organizations. This (and a reply which is no less worth reading) can be looked up unter: www.is-Bremen.de/arab.
If one applies this to the present times, this means: It is cheap (like it is done by parts of the pro-Hamburg-faction) to refer to the current state of anti-racism and then loudly call out 'iiih' and fork off to Hamburg. Damned, this is no solution! Whoever is serious about her/his criticism of the present once in a while truly alarming state of anti-racism should come to Thüringen and see that changes can be arranged as quickly as possible. That this won't work without criticism and arguments is not questioned by anybody, last of all by the refugees and migrants themselves!
3. I now come to the (for the time being) last argument which is not so much a reply but rather the outing of a gap (in the pro-Hamburg-discurs), a gap though, which is ominous and therefore worth to be interpreted: be it as trick of power politics, unintentional exposition of one's own poisition or as a droll blockade to see and hear clearly. In their claim (which was the decisive factor for the pro-Hamburg-faction), according to which what is planned in Thüringen is mainly refugee-support-work, which is reduced anti-racism and which therefore has to be rejected, they intentionally keep quiet about the fact, that not only on both assess- and preparation-meetings in Frankfurt and Göttingen, but also in numerous written contributions more and other things have been brought to bear in favour of Thüringen than what was known until now, in fact by people i.a. from Frankfurt, Berlin and Bremen. According to them a camp put up together with refugee- and migrant-self-organizations would offer the chance to finally tackle the circumstance, that the majority of the anti-racist border-camp population (so far) has been german-white. Because this circumstance (which is well known from other events/structures) is everything but harmless. No, in the opposite: It is the effect of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion, that means neither coincidence or neuter but part of the problem, which we pretend to fight by means of anti-racist border-camps and other activities. This means: Migrants, refugees and people without legal documents are exposed to numerous institutional as well as structural harassments, discriminations and obstacles. This starts with purposeful strategies of social isolation, expecially for refugees (key words here are: living in homes, prohibition to work, 'Residenzpflicht' (compulsory residence) , the system of chip-cards…), continues with the (not least) structural discrimination on the housing market, in the world of wage work, in the education system, the field of political participation… and ends with everyday violence, be it verbal, symbolic of physical. All of these exclusions have - and this is decisive here - one indispensable precondition: They require the existence of a collective, not only national, but also racist charged WE-identity, which is facing a YOU, designated as the more or less Other respective Different. Because only where a WE can bei distinguished from a YOU it is plausible or legitimate (at least in racist-national constituted societies) to subject certain people to the just listed harassments, discriminations and obstacles.
WE-YOU-identities are not easily discovered, and therefore the existence of such WE-YOU-identities requires double processes of constructions, which refer to each other mirror-image-like. It is rather to emphasize that in the course of political processes (that is due to colonialism and slavery, due to the development of capitalist-patriarchal nation-states, due to apartheid and racist discrimination etc.) skin colour and other physical (and recently also cultural) markings were not only constructed as allegedly eminent orientations of distinction but also marked (= classified). It was on this basis that - by reverting to further actual as well as ascribed markings and features - it came to the formation of different identities, among them for example white and black ethnic identities. What is exactly meant by this cannot be investigated here, because it would require to answer a lot of questions, questions like the following: What is blackness/ what is whiteness/what does it mean, that blackness respective whiteness are historically-culturally produced identities/ how do these identities emerge/ why does blackness depend on whiteness/ what are fantastic-projective ascriptions (concerning lust, desire and fear)/ how and why do these ascriptions become internalized and therefore realitiy/ how are blackness, whiteness and other power relations (for example gender) interlinked/ to what extent are blackness and whiteness reductionist polarizations (in view of Asian, Arabic, Eastern European… identities etc. etc. ? As I said, I do not want to continue these thoughts, but refer to the article 'Colonial World of images and the subject. Or else: whiteness, blackness & gender: About the crossing of racism and sexism", which was printed in the interim number 541 respective in the kassiber number 47. (The english version was printed in the reader for the Crossover Conference, which took place in Bremen in january 2002.) Because this text tries to formulate answers to some of the questions, which were just brought up, and it is one of the texts, which were brought up fot discussion in the course of the Thüringen-Hamburg-debate, but which were the whole lot ignored by the pro-Hamburg-faction…
Coming back: When making oneself aware of what has just been said it becomes obvious, why it is everything but a coincidence - but instead the effect of racist mechanisms of in- and exclusion, that so far there has been no further-reaching cooperation between refugees and non-refugees respective migrants and non-migrants in the context of the bordercamp. Because the differences which exist between refugees, german whites and migrants are not only due to the fact, that they often come from different societal respective cultural backgrounds, which reduces the sum of possible intersection (by which I don't want to strengthen the prejudice of solid, strictly measured cultural groups). No, the differences between refugees, german whites and migrants exist not least because of the fact that they are differently socialized by the racist circumstances, that is 'put' at different places in the societal space. Or even more pointed: While german whites belong to the societal WE (with all the inclusions this implies) refugees and migrants belong to the societal YOU (with all the exclusions which this implies). And this is true for all, that is also for white leftradicals. They might fight it, but no german white in Germany can escape the privilege to not have to face racist discrimination, exclusion and harassment.
This leads to the conclusion that trans-identitarian (even more: hybrid) organization is the only adequate strategy to fight racism seriously! To unterstand the concrete meaning of this one should at first be aware of two aspects concerning identity: On the one hand side it is inevitable - if one likes it or not - to recognize the differences between the respective identities, that is to be aware of them and take them serious. After all our identities are the expression of different experiences, experiences which differ according to class, gender, ethnicity etc. and therefore each go along with specific preconditions for the shaping of the subject and the identity. But on the other hand it is true as well that the identity is nothing which comes into being just by itself, depending on the place a human being has come into the societal space. No, identities are always the product of an interplay: It's true that people are exposed to certain conditions (which they cannot choose themselves), but there is scope, scope in which the own conditions of living can be reflected and desires for change or even revolution can come up. (If this scope didn't exist, it would not be unterstandable, why 'we' exist, why there is resistance anyway.) In this sense the identity politics of maginalized respective discriminated groups should be taken serious (lesbians/gays, migrants and refugees, women, disabled people etc.), because in order to put up resistance one has to form a resistance collective and in order to do so the people concerned have to exchange their respective experiences of discrimination as well as where they are off to. This strategy is often connected with a (tactical) approval of one's own marginalization (I want to refer here exemplary to the concept of Kannak Attack). Well, and for most part this is also true for left resistance in general; also here is the need for a collective We, otherwise the left resisters would be not more than a wild bunch of chickens, unable to act.
And still: Although identity should not be condemned lock, stock and barrel (and please take this into consideration!), it is still true that identities are primarily products of power. They reflect, as I have mentioned before, the sum of the respective experiences, that is of the unreasonable demands (be they good or bad), the discriminations, the harassments, the compulsions, the norms, the categories, the classifications, the polarizations, short, all which human beings have to or may experience. And because this is the way it is, because our identities are primarily internalized power conditions, and because we are made part of the conditions that we fight against, it is inevitable to critically question our identities, that is to tear them apart and (in the long term) to put them together to something completely different: What we have to do (to phrase it in the field of racism) is to put identities to the test, which are beyong racist YOU-WE-polarizations, which are not based on delimination, in- and exclusion, projective ascriptions etc., but molten, constantly changing and developping and who expect the Other not only in the outside (with the strangers), but also within themselves, and who have the urge to start to 'new waters', not least new waters in themselves (cue word here: free flooding - hey, do you notice anything!?) With other words, what is needed is that which the english language refers to with the rather bulky term of hybridity: Where hybrid identities respective hybrid cultures come up, there is no outside, which is strictly shielded from a certain inside, there it is not possible to tell apart those who belong and those who don't belong and on this basis build up conditions of discrimination, exploitation and violence.
But stop: This what is formulated here is music of the future, is nothing more than an utopian vanishing point. Because presently we are standing somewhere very different. We are - and this is pointed! - prisoners of our identities, which is not surprising, because it is not possible for anyone (be she oder he refugee, white german oder migrant) to just cancel the societal conditions (from which our respective identities do emerge). Or put differently: As long as societal power conditions exist, our identites are the immediate, 'shadow-like' witnesses of these conditions. Sad, but true!
Is is because of this that Thüringen is about not more than first steps, first steps, though, which - and here the nice word trans-identitarian enters the scene - leave behind the narrow borders of one's own identity-space, keeping in mind, that identities can be very different and therefore not fit easily together, why one always has to see, where it fits or does not fit and when it is time to argue, to argue not least about the question , how (in the long term) such an anti-racist resistance-WE can be build, which is already formed trans-identitarian, even hybrid. Or put differently: What one wants to do in Thüringen is to take the bread away from the mouth of racism: Racism requires divisions (WE-YOU…) and rebuilds them again and again. One can only face this by loosening and sometimes even opening the screws of division, that is by a cooperation of refugees, german whites and migrants, so that not only are the identity walls torn down (or at least damaged) but also the power conditions which are directly connected to this are fought against, be it the regime of deportation, the prohibition to work or the violence in the streets.
However, several people of the pro-Hamburg-faction don't want to know anything of this, so that some of them have preferred it to be completely silent about the arguments, which were put foreward in favour of Thüringen. It seems (as I said: it seems!) as a countermove that some Hamburg-zampanos prefer it to stew in their own juice, that is to till their own allotment (in the colours: german-white-qutonomous) and this in the name of, as it is said again and again, a genuine (a good, a pure, a proper…) movement-camp. One question in this context: Can anyone, just anyone explain to me, why it should not be possible to get a leftradical and this would imply a trans-identitarian movement camp off the ground in Thüringen. Wouldn't that be cool, a lot cooler (and on top of everything a gigantic Chance) than once again having a bordercamp general assembly with a majority of the personal being german-white!!!

6. Taking stock

In the provisional appraisal it was said that expecially Schill and infrastructural advantages were speaking in favour of Hamburg. This is something, but in my eyes not enough, at least not in direct comparison with all the new things that are waiting for us in Thüringen, something new, which is difficult, challenging and on top of everything questioning our privileges, but what inversely constitutes a chance, the chance to react to a number of necessities which we cannot avoid in the long run anyway (like 'we' did not manage to avoid the patriarchal gender relations…). In this contect I want to say that one should take the chance with two hands where it's offered. This is adressing especially those who have pointed out again and again that one could also cooperate with refugees and migrants in Hamburg. But: At present there are no refugees or migrants in Hamburg which are in a comparative way close to the border camp like The Voice or the Refugee Initative Brandenburg. So if one really cares about trans-identitarian organization one should take the chance where it is offered instead of going to look in Hamburg for refugees and migrants who are willing to cooperate. A plan which is doomed to failure anyway as anyone will concede who has ever tried to mould something like trans-identitarian alliances. In short: In my eyes there are many good reasons (not all of them have been mentioned in this text - like for example: 'Attacking right hegemony!') that this year's music will play in Thüringen.
But: It is too late. Considerable parts of the previous border camp preparation group (among them many of those who have been in the business of politics for a long time) have gone away and are in the meantime preparing the Schill-Y-Out-Days in Hamburg. Despite of all differences this is an immense shortening for this year's border camp, apart from the fact that it is everything but a brilliant achievenent in the field of political culture. And still - this is the situation, and we have no other choice than to seek the political (!) debate, because otherwise there is the danger of a more or less petit bourgeos (that is shielded from each other) juxtaposition of autonomous garden plot holders. In this sense I appeal to you, the knights of the dispute, which you are according to your own words: Break the silence, stop spreading rumors, name names and say why a bordercamp in Thüringen constitutes in your eyes a political dead end. In the meantime there is sufficient text which you can relate to!

Gregor Samsa

08.07.2002